Patron Saint of abuse victims

The canonisation of Mother Mary MacKillop, the redoubtable co-foundress of the Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart, has been big news lately. Not just in Australia either. News about Australia's first saint is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant extensive coverage in newspapers, magazines and websites around the globe.

Lately, the media has focused on MacKillop's excommunication in 1870 and, specifically, how much of the local bishop's decision to eject her from the church centered on whether she had been personally connected to raising a charge of sexual abuse against a priest. The details of this complicated story seem to change almost daily.

But according to Paul Gardiner SJ, the postulator of her 'cause' for canonisation and an acknowledged expert on her life, MacKillop herself was not personally involved with raising the charge of abuse, though the sisters in her order apparently were. (The sisters reported the abuse to the co-founder of their order, Fr Julian Tenison Woods.)

The resulting controversy (especially the resulting anger of a friend of the accused priest, who had a malign influence over the bishop) was one of many factors that led to her excommunication by Bishop Laurence Sheil of Adelaide, out of a sense of vengeance. (Sheil rescinded the punishment five months later, on his deathbed.)

Earlier, Sheil had invited MacKillop to work in Adelaide, where she and her sisters would eventually set up schools, a women's shelter and an orphanage, among their many works. But MacKillop's independent spirit — even setting aside the abuse case — seemed to represent a threat to the bishop.

In the midst of the recent controversy, some charged that the media's focus on the excommunication was unseemly, and that the story of her order's involvement with the abuse charge detracted from the celebration of the canonisation. But to the contrary, MacKillop's involvement in the case, even if it consisted only in enduring the wrath of some of the local clergy for her sisters' actions, does not dim the luster of her holiness. It adds to it.

Whatever opprobrium, rejection or outright punishment MacKillop endured as a result of her sisters' standing up for a victim of sexual abuse, she can be properly seen be as someone drawn into the sexual abuse scandal a century before the rest of the Catholic Church was. As a result, she might be someone that victims and their families feel drawn to in prayer: a kind of patron saint for abuse victims.

The idea of a holy woman who had been at loggerheads with some members of the hierarchy—and was even excommunicated—is not new in the annals of the saints. The most recently named American saint, Mother Theodore Guérin, foundress of the Sisters of Providence of St.-Mary-of-the-Woods, was once locked into a room in a presbytery by her bishop, who was infuriated by her (similarly) independent spirit.

The canonisation of those who were once in trouble with the church shows that, in the long run, the Vatican has a clearer understanding of holiness than do some contemporary Catholics. Often holiness is conflated with being unthinking, uncritical or blindly obedient. But popes have often canonised saints who were held in contempt by some church leaders.

Even some of the most universally beloved saints found themselves in conflict with the church at times: St Joan of Arc, to take the most extreme example, was excommunicated by an English ecclesiastical court, and then burned at the stake as a heretic; St Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuit Order, was locked in jail for a time by the Inquisition, who were suspicious of his ideas on prayer; St. Thomas Aquinas, perhaps the greatest of medieval theologians, found his own writings under ecclesiastical censure; and St Bernadette Soubirous, the visionary of Lourdes, was initially rejected by her local pastor, who refused to believe in her reports of her seemingly outlandish visions.

On a somewhat less exalted level, think of modern-day theologians like John Courtney Murray, Yves Congar and Henri de Lubac, who were either officially silenced or restricted in their teaching and writing, and then later 'rehabilitated', and in the case of Congar and de Lubac named cardinals.

The life of Mother Mary MacKillop cannot be reduced simply to the story of her excommunication. It was a full, active and holy life.

But neither is the story of her excommunication and her struggles with the local church unimportant. Her canonization shows the true wisdom of the Catholic church in recognizing the holiness of those that it once reviled, and even rejected.

Ultimately, the story of St. Mary's expulsion from the church, her readmission and her canonisation is not a scandal. It is a parable.

James Martin SJ is culture editor of America magazine and author of My Life with the Saints and The Jesuit Guide to (Almost) Everything. Photo by Frank Brennan

DID YOU ENJOY THIS ARTICLE?

Unlike many media organisations, Eureka Street doesn't use paywalls. We believe in making the work of our writers as free and accessible as possible.

But there are costs. In particular - and in contrast to many other online publications - we pay our contributors. After all, Eureka Street simply could not exist without the talents, expertise and sheer hard work of our writers and illustrators.

In lieu of paywalls, we rely almost entirely on donations from our readers and organisations that support our endeavours. If you enjoyed this article, please consider making a donation. Every little bit helps us in our efforts to bring a distinctive, values-based take on the issues and events that matter in our world.

submit a comment

Word Count: 0

Thank you

Existing comments

While concurring with James Martin that all aspects of Mary MacKillop's life are significant, I suggest that 'true wisdom' on the part of the Catholic Church will be evident when she has developed the dignity, strength, and compassion that can enable her to engage with those with whom she disagrees, with the openness of mind that is prepared to change. Margaret Smith | 13 October 2010

An excellent article by James Martin but I'll differ with him on one point. The Vatican's retrospective view of holiness is for a simple reason. Current office bearers are removed from the controversy by time and place. They are content to right historical wrongs because they have no 'skin in the game' as sports enthusiasts like to say to describe people willing to risk themselves in a controversy.

If the Vatican had better view of holiness than workaday catholics it would be better able to recognize holiness at the time rather than wait a century or two, sometimes longer. Michael Elphick | 15 October 2010

I think that this shows the church culture of the day - speak out against abuse and we will get you. this continues today as illustrated by the shameful treatment of Bishop Geoffrey Robinson by the Vatican and the Australian and American Bishops.Ray Ham | 17 October 2010

Similar Articles

What’s wrong with Voting for Jesus?

Scott Stephens

27 February 2007

I must confess to growing bored very quickly when I hear that our real problem today is the erosion of spirituality, of belief in a deeper dimension of life, and the consequent rampant materialism. From a properly Christian perspective, the problem today is not materialism, but religion itself.

Muslim at the heart of an Indonesian Christian office

Greg Soetomo

27 February 2007

When I reflect on this conversation, I am also struck by how different what I see in daily life is from what I read and watch in the media about about Muslim militants, the clash between Christians and Muslims, fundamentalism, or terrorism. Every age has its own false ideas. In our time, it is the notion that identifies Islam with hostility and aggression.